Sight & Sound The Critics’ Top 50 Greatest Films of All Time
1. Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
3. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
4. La Règle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
5. Sunrise: a Song for Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
7. The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
9. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer, 1927)
10. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
11. Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925)
12. L’Atalante (Jean Vigo, 1934)
13. Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)
14. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
15. Late Spring (Ozu Yasujiro, 1949)
16. Au hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966)
17. Seven Samurai (Kurosawa Akira, 1954)
17. Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)
19. Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974)
19. Singin’ in the Rain (Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1951)
21. L’avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960)
21. Le Mépris (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963)
21. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)
24. Ordet (Carl Dreyer, 1955)
24. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-Wai, 2000)
26. Rashomon (Kurosawa Akira, 1950)
26. Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966)
28. Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001)
29. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
29. Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985)
31. The Godfather Part II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
31. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)
33. Bicycle Thieves (Vittoria De Sica, 1948)
34. The General (Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926)
35. Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)
35. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)
35. Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal Akerman, 1975)
35. Sátántangó (Béla Tarr, 1994)
39. The 400 Blows (François Truffaut, 1959)
39. La dolce vita (Federico Fellini, 1960)
41. Journey to Italy (Roberto Rossellini, 1954)
42. Pather Panchali (Satyajit Ray, 1955)
42. Some Like It Hot (Billy Wilder, 1959)
42. Gertrud (Carl Dreyer, 1964)
42. Pierrot le fou (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
42. Play Time (Jacques Tati, 1967)
42. Close-Up (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)
48. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966)
48. Histoire(s) du cinéma (Jean-Luc Godard, 1998)
50. City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931)
50. Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi Kenji, 1953)
50. La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)
The Directors’ Top 10 Greatest Films of All Time
Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
=2 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
=2 Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1980)
Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
=7 The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
=7 Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
Mirror (Tarkovsky, 1974)
Bicycle Thieves (De Sica, 1948)
Hitchcock’s VERTIGO for me is one of the greatest masterpieces in the history of the cinema, and a valid and legitimate choice to take the top spot, even at the expense of CITIZEN KANE, a fellow (storied) masterpiece that has won for the past 50 years in this very polling. But not everyone agrees. My very good friends Tony d’Ambra, Jon Lanthier and Sachin Gandhi have forward e mails to be critical of the choice. I know Allan is a huge fan of the film, long considering it one of the greatest ever made.
And Dee Dee? Her love for VERTIGO is legendary.
In any event, I adore TOKYO STORY and applaud the directors too for having it at #1. Nice to see BALTHAZAR, CITY LIGHTS, JOAN OF ARC, SATANTANGO, BICYCLE THIEVES, PATHER PANCHALI, THE GENERAL, PERSONA, 2001, SUNRISE, RUBLEV, LATE SPRING and KANE especially make the Top 50.
As said in my email to Sam, I am more comfortable with the Directors ballot – see link – with Tokyo Story at #1. I loathe the manipulative misanthropy of Vertigo. As the very astute BBC article and the comments from the BFI intimate, the result reflects only the views of rather a precious lot of ‘critics’ – who are whores to the zeitgeist and the latest trend. Alas, even worse I suppose would be the result of a poll of prominent bloggers. True film criticism should be in awe of the humanity of a work of art not its technical artifice. I can’t think of any equivalent to Vertigo in the other arts that would be considered a “masterpiece” – if that label has any real meaning any more so much has it been abused by film .
There is a video interview here with the Sight & Sound editor by the BBC News Arts Editor Nick James: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19080414
What is breathtaking is James’ assertion is that CK lacks humanity and is about a corporate type while V is humanistic. Surely, he jests.
I would still place Citizen Kane #1 with Tokyo Story a close #2.
Tony, I must agree with you here on the absurdity of Nick James’ comparative statement. CITIZEN KANE lacks ‘humanity.’ Right. It’s incredible that he hasn’t been summarily mauled yet.
I agree. The argument of Kane lacking humanity is bogus and representative of an unenlightened point of view.
While it is definitely bogus to say CITIZEN KANE ‘lacks humanity’, it’s just as bogus to say VERTIGO is ‘manipulative misanthropy’.
I’m cool with Vertigo over Citizen Kane. Both films are absolutely perfect, but Hitchcock’s feels more personal overall with a truly penetrating look at the darker side of the human condition.
Very well-put there Maurizio, if I may say so!
Kane’s reputation is established and, I assume, will always be thought of with the “greatest film ever made” tag. Perhaps it is a good thing that a new film has finally toppled it from the top perch – and I certainly have no problems with Vertigo, which is a film that I love as well.
What bothers me a bit about it happening is based on much of the press and analysis I read leading up to the release of the poll. It was a lot of critics who appeared to be advocating getting rid of Citizen Kane just for the sake of being different and changing things for the sake of change. That seems silly to me.
Dave—
You have made what I see to be the most vital point of all regarding the reversed placement and that is that by placing #1 the past five decades in a row, KANE has pretty much permanently forged its reputation and regard as ‘the greatest movie ever made’ and a single reversal wrought by an apparent desire to shake things up (as opposed to any genuine reassessment) can not undo what has been done. Like you though, I do think VERTIGO is still an excellent choice regardless.
Odd effect, especially compared to the 2002 lists – the critics are going backwards in time! 2 silents instead of 3 – newest film from 1968, not 1974. I don’t know if I like that or not – the silents are good, I suppose, but it does reinforce the idea that opinions of film are very much set in stone – or maybe it’s that film itself is a thoroughly mature art form. Who knows…. The top 50 is lot more varied, which is usually what happens… Anyway – nothing really surprising or unreasonable in the top 10. I match 2 of the critics’ picks, 1 of the directors’, but that’s a rather pointless comparison, since the pool of truly great films is a couple hundred deep anyway, and distinctions, especially among the first 50 or so, are pretty purely arbitrary and personal….
Nice of the directors to put Tokyo Story at the top, though the rest of their list is almost as dull as it was 10 years ago. Maybe worse – they’ve dropped Dr. Strangelove for 2001! What possesses them?
Finally – with La Jetee on the list, and Vertigo taking over the top spot, it makes a nice little Chris Marker memorial…
Weeping Sam my friend, as always you make some brilliant points here. In the end I am surprised to say that I would probably match the critics’ top 10 with 5 choices: VERTIGO, KANE, TOKYO STORY, SUNRISE and JOAN OF ARC, but not sure how I’d order them. SANSHO THE BAILIFF, AU HASARD BALTHAZAR, THE LAST PICTURE SHOW and BARRY LYNDON could well be the other five, but I am far away from firming up any top ten at this point. Too many choices to consider. I am thinking you matched up with TOKYO STORY and either JOAN OF ARC or SUNRISE.
I’d have kept 7 of the top 10
Vertigo, Citizen Kane, Tokyo Story, 2001, The Searchers, The Passion of Joan Of Arc and Sunrise would have, probably, all made my personal cut. In the wake of three open positions to be filled by films that were presented on this list, I’d have filled the holes with:
Chaplin’s immortal CITY LIGHTS
Francis Coppola’s APOCALYPSE NOW
and the final postion with either Bergman’s PERSONA or Kelly and Donen’s timeless masterpiece of joy and smiles, SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN.
Shit, I might have even pulled a “Juliano” and just tied up the final two!!!!
It’s only gone backwards in date because they rightly split up votes for the Godfather films, which never should have been seen as one. And there are several from the 90s further down, so I don’t see it as an issue.
They went backwards at the beginning of history – it’s that third silent that’s really interesting. A silent film replaces the musical? An experimental documentary replaces agitprop? (If you decide to pretend that Vertov replaces Eisenstein and Dreyer replaces Singin’ in the Rain.) I don’t know what that tells you about critical trends or fashions, but it’s intriguing.
As for the list as a whole – I have a kind of knee jerk reaction to top tens that don’t get past 1970 (not that my own, personal top ten manages it – 1971! that’s the newest film I’d put in the top 10! [McCabe and Mrs. Miller, if you're curious]), but I think there’s a lot more to it than that. Maybe nothing more or less than home video – so that it is possible, now, to actually see a reasonable sample of the entire history of film. If Sunrise or Vertigo are exactly as easy to see as In the Mood for Love or Mulholland Drive, novelty in itself is less important… (Live in a good college town, by the way, and things like Sunrise and Citizen Kane and The Searchers are easier to see, on film, than a lot of films from the 90s and 00s.)
Finally, to Sam – Tokyo Story would be a good guess, but it’s not in my top ten… (Early Summer and Late Spring are, though… a pretty arbitrary ordering, I admit.) Nope – Vertigo and Rules of the Game are the matches…
What I am getting at is the blanket statement that you made saying that LOLITA is “not a good film”.
I happen to like LOLITA alot. It was the first film of Kubrick’s that I ever saw and was fascinated by its wit, risky subject matter (I think I first saw it in 1980 on the “channel 5 movie club”) and was one of the first “older” movies that really got me hooked on classic cinema. That I drew up Rotten Tomatoes was not to say this or that review was the definative word on the film, it was merely to support the fact that more than less think the film is a good movie and the consensus is that it’s successful even though it doesn’t adhere to the source novel the way that Lyne’s does.
I didn’t start my love for Kubrick till the first time I saw 2001 on a big screen back in 1985, in a revival house in the East Village, when I was just starting college. So, to suggest that I blindly defend Kubrick is about as wrong as it gets. I will admit, freely, that (upon investigation of all of his films since that first viewing of LOLITA) my opinion of Kubrick is one of near perfection and I really think that within the amount of films he made over the course of his life he was the rare director that didn’t step wrong. Even his most problematic film, SPATACUS, was rescued by the director after it’s tumultuous hesitated start and, although not a film that Kubrick wanted to make, came off resounding well in the end.
LOLITA isn’t a perfect film, I’ll give you that, but it’s clearly a film coming from an artist that was finding his way to the kind of movies he wanted to make. I see LOLITA as a bold experiment by Kubrick, the fusing of his ideas to a source that inspired themes the director wanted to hit upon. That it’s entertaining, thought provoking (for its time) and dared to be what it was AT THAT TIME lend me to believe its nothing short of a very good film.
You disagree. Fine. I won’t lose sleep. But, I’m not the one making blanket statements here…
That’s all I have to say about this.
They dumped Strangelove for 2001 for a very good reason…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2001 is the better film.
Yes, but 2001 still isn’t in Kubrick’s top 3.
I second 2001 over Dr Strangelove Dennis.
According to your top 3000 Allan (which you compiled less than 6 months ago) 2001 would be your third lol.
If the top of my head, Maurizio, it’s be 4th now, The Shining would rise above it. As I said when I did the 3000, than was then. Heck, it’s changed a fair bit since then if I did it again.
BTW, on the subject of counting, the master 3,000 piece was posted on May 10, 2011 (and the countdown itself formulated in April). Six months ago? Hmm…Think it’s nearer 15.
Regardless of which order we place them in Allan, the four films made after Dr Strangelove are certainly better than Kubrick’s 1964 effort. I guess for more traditional/conventional studio-era minded film lovers Strangelove is tops, but anyone else looking for progression and innovation will probably come in favor of the 1968-1980 stuff.
I used the comment section from the link at the top of Wonders to date your list. I guess these responses were from a later date.
No, no, no…
I love STRANGELOVE as much as the next guy and will sing its praises till I am ready to spit my last breath. However, to say that it is better than 2001 is ludicrous. You can change the lists a million times, fall in and out of love with this and that film that has come before or after, but in the end it’s 2001.
The technical and visual achievements alone demand that it rises to the top of the milk bottle. Then, you have the themes and the questions it raises, the meditation on mans place in the universe and the growing awareness that he is not alone.
I’ll be the first to say that, I believe, Kubrick never made a bad film and that most (if not all) of his films come closer to masterpiece status than not. However, debate them if you want, if there is one undeniable masterwork in the mans canon it’s most definately 2001. By sheer scope alone, the willingness and, finally, execution to make it one of the few true screen experiences that go beyond mere film and the fact that the medium was forever changed after 2001 is testament alone that it’s his greatest film. Add to the fact that it is the high water mark for Science Fiction and has never, EVER been matched (some have come close but no cigar).
Yes, STRANGELOVE is a great film and one of the greatest black comedies of all. Yes, THE SHINING is underappreciated and is far better than what many initially took it for when released. BARRY LYNDON is that film by the master that is so seductive you have to go back again and again knowing deep down that there is something there…
But, 2001 is great from the word go… When you see it you know, automatically, that your witnessing a master powerhouse working on all cylinders and his work on the film will lure you in and immerse you in the period and make you believe. That’s the thing about truly great sci-fi, and I guess film in general, that they can make you believe without ever once looking back for a reality check…
2001 is so perfect in conception and execution that it sucks you in…
Dennis you should check out Lolita is you think Kubrick never made a bad film.
Nope, diagree with you 100% on LOLITA, Jamie…
Kubricks vision of LOLITA is not the book and I know that you prefer the Lyne version because it follows the book more than Kubrick did. But, the reason the Kubrick film works, and very well at that, is that the themes that Stanley wanted were retained and then allowed to be remolded to Kubricks musing. He used the outline of LOLITA as a platform for his own thoughts on the subject. This is why Kubrick’s version borders on comedy so often and why the touchy subject matter doesn’t hit you as serious at first. To call Kubricks LOLITA a bad film when comparing it to a straight adapatation of the Nobokov novel isn’t really fair. Kubrick never intended his film to be a mirror image of Nobokov’s novel. Look at THE SHINING, CLOCKWORK and STRANGELOVE, all these were based on novels and none of them actually resemble the entirety of the written page. This is intentional and they are used as springboards to dive into Kubricks thoughts on the subjects…
LOLITA is a great film. It’s just not the LOLITA you want…
I can understand the criticism. But, to compare the Kubrick film to the Lyne vesion is like comparing white to black…
No, it’s not a good film. In fact I’d say if it didn’t have Stanley’s name on it you’d be in agreement with me. I completely understand how book themes can change when adapted to screen, and new concerns— central to the director— can be brought in new. Kubrick does this magnificently elsewhere (SHINING, CLOCKWORK, etc) because each time his concern is along the same lines as the book and then/or adds a new dimension (for example, the SHINING adds the Native American slaughter aspect to ratchet up the terror), whereas nothing of the sort happens in LOLITA. And, at some point if your straying that far from the book you have to ask yourself, “why even adapt this book at all?”. (In fact Kubrick’s thoughts years later that he shouldn’t have done it is probably correct)
Also, and this is objective, we can debate Kubrick’s altering of plot order and see if his decisions we masterful. I think the reordering works to the detriment of much of the story’s wallop, and it’s glaringly obvious. You say Kubrick “added humor” and I wonder if you’ve read Nabokov’s book, as it’s leagues funnier and incredibly more subversive (in its dark humor). As I said in an email chain weeks back about the film: it’s not really Kubrick’s fault, he’s about the worst possible director for the material. It needs a darkly erotic director, not someone like Stanley who probably got hard reading back issues of Consumer Reports. (If only Borowczyk could have gotten his hands on it with American financial backing….)
Watch Kazan’s BABY DOLL then Kubrick’s LOLITA one fact should immediately become clear to you…
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1012611-lolita/
For what it’s worth Dennis, I have always considered three Kubrick films as borderline bad. Killers Kiss, Spartacus, and yes Lolita (have not seen Fear And Desire yet). I love Stanley as much as the next guy, but not everything he touched turned to gold IMO.
What is this supposed to prove other than you can’t retort anything I say so you’ll let others do it for you (and many poorly I might add).
What I am saying through the illustration of the Rotten Tomatoes site is that most people don’t see the problems with the film that you have, very specifically, touched upon.
I will never say you are wrong, and I am always interested in hearing (and reading) the views of others. However, it seems that the majority has no problems with Kubricks version and that most (if not all, as you point out) consider it one of directors classic films.
I take the film for what it is and what is presented. I take Lyne’s film for what it is as well. They are two totally different animals that, I think, work extremely well for what they are, individually, trying to do…
I don’t know what to do with this comment Dennis. I’m aware that others like the film. So what? That and two quarters will get you a candy bar. I too am interested in reading and hearing the views of others, what I am not interested in is reading the views of others giving as your view. I have a functioning computer and can go to rottentomatoes if I wish. I will go there now to show how much a joke the site is in its design (its flaw is that it separates reviews as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ when very few are that one sided, effectively taking the discussion of said film to a gladiator arena like ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’. Look what it’s done here, we’re no longer actually discussing the film but just using it as some worthless trump card). But since you went there, lets look at some of the ‘pro’ reviews, keeping in mind these are being used as the arguemnt for Kubrick’s LOLITA as a ‘good film’:
“Where Nabokov was witty, Kubrick is sometimes merely snide, but fine performances (particularly from Peter Sellers, as the ominous Clare Quilty) cover most of the rough spots”
“Far too subtle in its sexual intentions to reach what the novel was after.”
“A fascinating if problematic early film from Stanley Kubrick, perhaps the most obsessive of the great auteurs of the 1960s.”
“A wonderful evocation of the book’s humorous aspects, but — censors be darned — very little of its passion and sexuality.”
“Mason and Sellers (as Quilty) are standouts, but the film is too long by half, with much of the novel’s sly eroticism excised.”
and, to drive the point down that a message is only as good as the opinion of the messenger consider this one:
“Far more satisfying than his later works (one hesitates to call them mere movies).”
Is that an opinion that should be taken as anything more than crank? So again we’re back to were we started…
What I am getting at is the blanket statement that you made saying that LOLITA is “not a good film”.
I happen to like LOLITA alot. It was the first film of Kubrick’s that I ever saw and was fascinated by its wit, risky subject matter (I think I first saw it in 1980 on the “channel 5 movie club”) and was one of the first “older” movies that really got me hooked on classic cinema. That I drew up Rotten Tomatoes was not to say this or that review was the definative word on the film, it was merely to support the fact that more than less think the film is a good movie and the consensus is that it’s successful even though it doesn’t adhere to the source novel the way that Lyne’s does.
I didn’t start my love for Kubrick till the first time I saw 2001 on a big screen back in 1985, in a revival house in the East Village, when I was just starting college. So, to suggest that I blindly defend Kubrick is about as wrong as it gets. I will admit, freely, that (upon investigation of all of his films since that first viewing of LOLITA) my opinion of Kubrick is one of near perfection and I really think that within the amount of films he made over the course of his life he was the rare director that didn’t step wrong. Even his most problematic film, SPATACUS, was rescued by the director after it’s tumultuous hesitated start and, although not a film that Kubrick wanted to make, came off resounding well in the end.
LOLITA isn’t a perfect film, I’ll give you that, but it’s clearly a film coming from an artist that was finding his way to the kind of movies he wanted to make. I see LOLITA as a bold experiment by Kubrick, the fusing of his ideas to a source that inspired themes the director wanted to hit upon. That it’s entertaining, thought provoking (for its time) and dared to be what it was AT THAT TIME lend me to believe its nothing short of a very good film.
You disagree. Fine. I won’t lose sleep. But, I’m not the one making blanket statements here…
That’s all I have to say about this.
It’s fine to make blanket statements when I’m stating an opinion on a film. I will sleep well tonight (in a blanket) with the knowledge that the recent film 21 JUMP STREET is also a ‘great’ film as it scored an 85 (to LOLITA’S 92) using the knowledge that “other’s think that film is good and the consensus is that it’s successful…”
Thank’s for all the info on where and when you saw these films, it adds a lot to the discussion. I still don’t understand why you only think that I think Kubrick’s failure here is that he didn’t adapt the book closely enough.
Agree to disagree on this being a ‘thought provoking film for the early 60′s’, I mean when a time in cinema when the real heavies of the European Art scene were beginning to tread water this is pretty light…
But Dennis, and I’ll end with this, lets agree to add another (this one LOLITA) to the list of films we’ll need to watch mano-a-mano should we ever meet….
I must admit when I saw this news today I was rather shocked! I didn’t think anything would ever topple Kane, not at least this soon. It feels to me that yes perhaps the critics were just tired of Kane being at the top? I love Vertigo and certainly Vertigo is a worthy contender for number one. I just see the number 1 slot should be held for something that not only is significant in terms of filmmaking technique but also defines cinema in some way. I still feel like from a cinematic language standpoint, Kane cannot be topped. Remember, I’m someone who doesn’t even like Kane as much as I like Touch of Evil. This just feels like a reactionary event. Perhaps a backlash or something towards Kane and Welles.
As for other things, wow Mulholland Drive at 28! I love that film but am kind of surprised it is included here so highly. Also nice to see Kiarostami’s Close-Up, which is such an amazing work. I’m surprised that Keaton’s The General dropped from last poll and quite a bit it appears as it was 16 last time I think. Also nice to see The Searchers in the top 10. Also, what’s the deal with 4 Godard films and 1 Bergman film?????
“Also, what’s the deal with 4 Godard films and 1 Bergman film?????”
Ah Jon your shocked is shared. But then my history with Godard is checkered. But to put him on the same page with a director who could very well be considered the greatest of all-time, well……..I won’t go there. I may have even gotten into trouble already……….Ha!
I don’t really have any problem with Godard having a few films on the list. I might just argue that Godard’s 4th best, is not better than Bergman’s second best. Not no way….not no how. There is no one who can argue for that.
Is it because Bergman has so many great films that his votes were split too much? I suppose that’s possible.
Absolutely Jon!
Fanny and Alexander
Cries and Whispers
Persona
Wild Strawberries
Smiles of a Summer Night
The Silence
Through A Glass Darkly
Winter Light
Sawdust and Tinsel
Summer Interlude
Scenes from a Marriage
Summer with Monika
The Seventh Seal
It could be debated that every single one of these films would belong on any all-time list and above or with all the very best Godards.
It could be.
Seconded. Or thirded, or whatever.
I was attempting to reply to Jon’s 2:50 am comment. (It’s only 11 pm where I am, what timezone is this on??)
Hey Stephen, I’m not really sure what time zone the site is on. I know….I know….Shows my vast technical expertise! Tony may be able to answer that.
But I did take your response as being an answer to Jon’s comment at “2:50″.
I agree Sam and I think the depth of Bergman is probably hurting him here in this case. This kind of list does not do justice to someone like Bergman as his breadth spreads out the votes too much.
Jon, excellent point. I completely agree.
I don’t get this as well. While I wouldn’t have any problems with the likes of BAND OF OUTSIDERS or BREATHLESS making the list…
Thinking that this director, who has always been, in my personal opinion, minor in comparison with the likes of Bergman, Ozu, Chaplin, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Ford, Murnau, Dreyer, Bunuel, Eisenstein and many more, totally buckles me when he places more films and higher than one of the 10 greatest directors in the history of film.
I should have said that Godard “is minor in comparison to” rather than “minor in comparison with”…
Sorry, I’m doing this from bed with an IPhone…
Maybe because Godard is one of the ten greatest directors too? I don’t know, just a guess.
I still think Godard belongs on this list of 10 or at least in the argument. I’m not saying that. I’m complaining that he has 4 in the top 50, and Bergman has 1. I mean going by this list, Godard is just about the greatest director of all time or at least the most prolific. And certainly, like I said, his 4th best is not better than Bergman’s second, or even third best!
Well the sooner you realize this is a highly subjective list not based on anything remotely factual and is, in essence, worthless and arbitrary a huge weight will be lifted from your shoulders. I don’t think any one director deserves more that 2 films on this list as there are literally thousands of deserving films to fit into 100 slots, and I also think they shouldn’t be ordered. I also want world peace and an end to starvation, and…
Oh, and I do think Godard is better than Bergman (!). Sam and I were talking about a Wonder’s 100 where everyone offers their top 100 or a link to it on their blog. I’d love to see yours.
@ Jaimie—-well of course I know it’s a subjective list….but that data guy in me would love to believe that with over 800 people voting, that some of the subjectivity is taken out of it. Meaning that yes there might be a minority that votes Jeanne Dielman to be the greatest film of all time, but in the end, the usual suspects will rule the roost because of the balance of the majority. That being said, I would to see a project for the 100 greatest films of all time…whether we just do that informally or formally. I think it would be fun. We could do this as our own “Sight and Sound” poll if you will. From the early reads on things, I’m not so sure our list would be drastically different from Sight and Sound, but I think we would have to be very strict on our criteria. That gets back to favorites versus greatest.
Yeah Jon I’d be willing to come up with a top 100 list as well. Though I’ll admit straight out that it will be completely subjective with no concessions to some vague idea of objectivity. That means a huge helping of Melville, Clouzot, Malick, Tarkovsky, Polanski and Kubrick over people like Godard, Ford and Ozu.
I find this thread very strange. I would think 4 Godard films in the top 50 would be around the bare minimum – it would be an extreme position, but I couldn’t really find grounds to disagree with someone putting 4 Godard films in the top 10. Bergman, on the other hand – I would be shocked if he didn’t make a list like this, but I’m not sure any of his films would make my top 50. He’d barely crack Godard’s top 10 (once? twice?)… Bergman is a fine director, and very important to film history – but not as important as Godard, and nowhere near as exhilarating a filmmaker, and his best films don’t approach Godard’s first 4 or 5 in any sense. Push comes to shove, I’d put Bergman in the “far side of paradise” camp – Godard is not just pantheon, he’s Holy Trinity.
It’s very odd to find myself so wildly at odds with Sam and some of the others here… though I guess I have the critics on my side this time….
Bergman over Godard easily for me weepingsamjuliano.
Carl Theodor Dreyer over both as well.
Holy what now? OMG. Weepingsam…..not finding grounds for someone putting 4 Godards in the top 10? Anyone putting 4 films by one director in any top 10 list of any kind is just plain….I don’t know unbalanced? Okay I never said Godard was not a good director. I said he is in the argument for one of the 10 best directors of all time. All I said, was that Godard’s 4th best, is not better than Bergman’s second. I’m sorry. I just don’t believe it. If I was voting for a top 50 I would probably have 2 Godard’s in there. I would have at least 2 Bergman’s as well.
“No where near as exhilarating a filmmaker”……. blink….blink….(crickets chirping).
“his best films don’t approach Godard’s first 4 or 5 in any sense”. I’m not even sure I want to humor this statement. Are you serious????
I find it almost impossible to choose among the top 3-4 Godards – any of which seem as good to me as anything else I could put in the top 10. And I can see a good case for 3-4 more Godards I wouldn’t vote for myself. So – hell yeah, I’m serious, and I’m not even up on his later films enough to include them. Now – it would be a very strange thing for someone to actually vote like that (other than Robert Bresson, voting for – 1) City Lights; 2) City Lights; 3 ) The Gold Rush…), but it would be hard to deny the worthiness of the films. (I feel the same way about other directors – Ozu, Lang, Mizoguchi, Rivette, Kurosawa, maybe Bresson, Dreyer – all have 3-4 films that seem as good as anything in the top 10… one has to find other criteria to choose among them if one is making lists. Whatever choice you make is pretty arbitrary, I think…) But choosing Pierrot le Fou, Vivre sa Vie, Breathless, Alphaville, Weekend and Two or Three Things I Know About Her ahead of Persona isn’t arbitrary. After that it gets arbitrary – but that’s a ways down the Godard list…
I do find Bergman a difficult filmmaker to get a handle on, or explain, or something. Particularly when I compare him to directors I’m clearly less fond of – take Tarkovsky, say. (He’s on the list 3 times, almost as much as Godard.) I think I would rank Bergman above Tarkovsky, and his films generally above Tarkovsky’s – but I understand why people revere Tarkovsky (more than Godard or Ozu or Capra or any of my favorites), and I find it baffling when people revere Bergman above those favorites. (He strikes me as being roughly in line with people like Ichikawa or Minelli – consistently excellent directors who just aren’t really in the first rank.) Tarkovsky represents a set of values I can see, and distinguish pretty clearly from my values, you could say. But Bergman – even the films I like leave me thinking how someone else did it better. Formally ambitious films like Persona make me think how he falls short of Godard or Imamura; his spiritual angst makes me wish I was watching Bresson or Dreyer; comedy, humanism, makes me think I’d rather see Ozu or Capra or Renoir. And he’s never as purely enjoyable as Hawks, Hitchcock, Kurosawa… so – in the end, I think he is one of the greatest filmmakers ever, one of the most important (not up to Godard or Kurosawa, maybe, but not far off) – but down a ways when it comes to best…
I would certainly say that Bergman’s exhaled critical perch from the 50′s and 60′s has been eroding slowly with time, while Godard has basically held his position with these established cinephiles. It would be interesting to see a Sight And Sound poll from the 70′s or 80′s. I would presume that Bergman probably has at least 4 films on those polls in the top 50. The fact that The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries are missing is probably not an accident at this point. A backlash has been steadily building for some time and it’s not uncommon to see some pointed venom aimed at the Swedish filmmaker on the net or among younger film buffs. The extreme self serious and heavy style of Bergman is certainly easy to lampoon/hate in this age of the hipster.
I don’t think the lack of Bergman on this list is an indication that the critical establishment has abandoned Bergman, any more than the fact that Bresson has not been abandoned. Their lack of films in the top 50 is more an indication of their consistent excellence across many films and due to the fact that they don’t have necessarily the “singular masterpiece”. I suspect that when the S&S magazine gets published, we will find that Bergman was probably nominated as many total times as the others, but his votes were spread across maybe 10 or 12 films, instead of 3-5. Same thing with Bresson. If 10 people voted for their favorite Bresson, we might have 5-7 different choices. This hurts as far as total votes go for a single film. Go ahead Weepingsam and keep singing Godard’s praises. I don’t have a problem with it. I just created my list of top 100 films and I put 3 Godard films on there. I also happened to put 5 Bergman films. I think they are both in the discussion for Greatest director of all time. It appears to me though that you are saying that Bergman is far below Godard. I’m not saying Godard is far below Bergman. How many Bergman films have you seen? Enough to join this argument?
When you do the tabulation, make sure you count me in Bergman’s corner. I have stated my general indifference to Godard on previous threads, so I must say I completely agree with Jon’s arguments and share his taste. I am also stunned that Chaplin is getting this kind of treatment, but Ebert has it right when he says all lists are meaningless. But this one is probably the one that’s respected the most.
My favorite Bergmans:
1 Wild Strawberries
2 The Silence
3 Fanny and Alexander
4 Through A Glass Darkly
5 Cries and Whispers
And Frank here are my five favorite Bergman films.
Wild Strawberries
The Silence
Persona
Scenes From a Marriage
Fanny and Alexander
Tarkovsky is an interesting one on this list. He’s obviously one of the greats but has a film risen more in cinema circles lately more than THE MIRROR? It’s brilliant, and for the top 20 sticks out like a sore thumb, it seems so ‘strange’. Reading the list for me is like, “conventional, conventional, conventional, conventional,…. BAM! The Mirror.”
Jamie,
Yeah I hear ya to a degree. Yes The Mirror, but I sort of hit a wall at Jeanne Dielman. I’m sorry. I’ve sat through that one. I mean I get it and I understand what people are talking about. I just don’t really care to watch that. It’s a chore, with very little to chew on. I mean so she’s a f-up suburban woman who goes crazy at the end. How predictable is that?
I think it’s more than that (first of all), and its predictability is combated by the fact that while it seems like a template of feminist cinema to eyes in 2012 it’s a film that essentially created that genre. Artifacts that created tropes often appear pedestrian after the fact, that’s more a comment on how fast culture gobbles this stuff up and homogenizes it (nothing seems alien or rebellious in hyper-capitalism for that long—unfortunately). The fact that the film is Marxist/Leftist and sort of understanding this point is another added boost.
Oh, and make the proto-BritPop connection to the film too:
I always think this song and that film are distant cousins in theme. So wonderful.
Jamie,
Ummmm no. If it looks pedestrian and feels pedestrian, then it is pedestrian. I’m sorry whether there is a painting, a film, a piece of music or whatever that created whatever genre you want to bring up, there has to be some magic there if it’s going to be considered great or whatever term you want to use. It can’t just ride on its laurels. It can’t ride on being the first. So what if it was the first. Also, I’m not so sure I agree with the fact that you’re saying it created the feminist genre. That’s quite a statement there. Either way, films aren’t just ideas and don’t live or die based upon the ideals or constructs they present. They are a living and breathing thing that has to come together as a whole. For me Jeanne Dielman is about quantifying and magnifying the mundane. I get that it’s feminist and I get the marxist angle too. However, the treatment doesn’t work for me because I find the pacing and lack of arc to not justify the length. That’s my reason. I honestly don’t care enough about the film either way to spend much time arguing for it. I just don’t believe that film’s can maintain a status just on being the “first to do something”, nor do I believe that this is even the first feminist film.
Oh, it’s certainly not the first feminist film, I meant it’s one of the first feminist films of a certain type. No, that alone wouldn’t make it special, but its one very important bullet point on the resume.
Much of your listed faults are things it never attempts, or aspects it doesn’t concern itself with. It’s more than fine that you still don’t like it as I’d guess the things it willfully lacks you seek or cherish in the cinema. Totally fine, you don’t like the film. There are a few on that list that don’t do much for me either… (Plus I’d say that JEANNE is similar to a few other films of that type that I like almost as much or as much. In some cases I may even like some more, and I don’t think JEANNE makes my eventual top 100, even if I love it/think it a masterpiece). Let’s move on.
Jonathan Rosenbaum’s theory (or maybe Nicole Brenez’) is that the new voting pool included more academics and academic critics, and they helped elevate the silent films, and put a lot of more experimental films on the longer list – Akerman, Kiarostami, Marker, Tarr, late Godard… probably contributes to Godard and Tarkovsky and Dreyer leading the way in total films (along with Coppola, I think it is). It’s a theory – it’s hard to say without seeing the 50 films from earlier lists, which I can’t seem to find…
Yeah we can move on, but not until I say a few more things. I still think it’s a bit weird that you’re stating it’s a feminist film of a certain type that was new, but I’m not sure I’m going to catch on to what you mean with that anyhow. As for things that I find fault with, yes maybe you don’t feel like the film is doing those things, but they are what I think the film is doing. I at least give a reason for why I don’t like it and what the aspect is. If I’m wrong, great. I’d love for someone to enlighten me. In my own inferior mind, that’s what I saw for better or worse. As for what I “cherish” about cinema…I am not consistent in that regard but we all have our cups of tea. It is most likely that Akerman is not mine.
Nice to see In the Mood for Love come in at 24. Is this its first appearance? If we are concerned with the potential for romantic love to equally elate and devastate, this film has it all over Vertigo. A movie to watch in the coming decades…
IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE was a brilliant choice for a number of reasons, and a great way to honor recent cinema! Absolutely Tony!
What I do find beyond ridiculous if we are to take numerical placements as more than they really may imply, but only a single Chaplin in the Top 50, and at No. 50 at that. CITY LIGHTS by any barometer of measurement is one of the supreme masterpieces of the cinema, a position supported by the intelligensia of most civilized countries and film scholars, and deserves a Top 10 berth.
I couldn’t agree with you more on this, Schmulee. Just for the fact that the final held shot of CITY LIGHTS has become one of the most iconic and recognizable when recalling cinema in our minds is testiment alone pointing towards the enduring brilliance and emotional catharsis of Chaplins heart play. It doesn’t hurt that everything before that shot works perfectly to bring you to that moment as well. CITY LIGHTS has always been my favorite of Chaplins work and on my short list of the 10 greatest films from any period in cinema… Fucking shame if we take these numerical positions seriously (which I won’t)…
Chaplin at #50 is an insult to the great clown. I figured ‘Kane’ would get dumped, but not for the wildly overrrated ‘Vertigo’. Very gratifying to see ‘Satantango’, Mulholland Drive’ and ‘Jeanne Dielman’ make the list, but where’s ‘Diary of a Country Priest’ and ‘Mouchette’? Bresson is much under-represented here. Are you grinding your teeth over ‘Some Like It Hot’ Sammy? LOL
If we are asking for another Bresson after Balthazar then A Man Escaped or Pickpocket would seem more justified.
I would be good with all four actually, but I respect both contentions here by Mark and Maurizio.
Mark, I definitely do not agree that VERTIGO is wildly overrated (it’s a supreme masterpiece to me rating with the best movies ever made) but you are clearly not the only person on this thread to feel the way you do. Fair enough. But yes, I was not too thrilled with SOME LIKE IT HOT placing here!!! But I know I am nearly alone on that opinion. Ha!
I’m not super crazy about Some Like It Hot either Sam (though I do like it overall). The Apartment seems like a better comedy to me. And while I may be biased, I think Wilder’s three noirs are all superior as well.
I think Bresson suffers from what Bergman suffers from. Too many high quality films that spread the votes too much. I mean Bresson could have at least 5 films that might be considered his best.
This time, I completely agree with Jon – Bresson is definitely in the running for the top 10 directors of all time – but I admit I would have a hard time picking films for a list like this. They have more cumulative power than individual power – and it is the devil’s work choosing among them. Mouchette, Pickpocket, A Man Escaped would usually get the honors – but – L’Argent, The Trial of Joan of Arc – are right there… his votes would be spread very wide and thin, I fear…
OK, OK, I’m rewatching ‘Vertigo’ again tonight, though Hitchcock’s gifts as a mesmerist seem pretty thin, shock is the metier of the Master of Suspense, which is why ‘Psycho’ is superior to “Vertigo’. And enduring Ms. Kim Novocaine — the legacy of the Hitchcock blondes of the late 50′s and early 60s is numbing (Novak, Doris Day, Hedren) is akin to taking a valium — the 20mg not the 10. For contemplative work I’ll take Ozu or Bresson. By the way, where the hell is Fassbinder on this list, or are films like ‘World on a Wire’ and ‘Berlin Alexanderplatz’ disqualified because they were made for German TV?
Roca, Roca, Roca, as a noirista I wouldn’t expect you to have much use for ‘Some Like It Hot’ in the Wilder ouevre. Tee-hee. But I agree that ‘A Man Escaped’ is another Bresson masterwork.
BTW, Lang should have been represented here by ‘M’ or ‘Dr. Mabuse der Spieler’ (a film which Hitch stole freely from in ‘Vertigo’ — cf. Stewart’s disembodied head with Klein Rogge’s), not ‘Metropolis’.
Strange, for me THE WRONG MAN is Hitchcock’s masterpiece, and I’m an already acknowledged fan of VERTIGO.
I like THE WRONG MAN too as I do and so many others by this titan of the cinema. I’ll try and put together a list of preference just for fun (Top10):
1. Vertigo
2. Rear Window
3. Rebecca
4. Psycho
5. The Lady Vanishes
6. North by Northwest
7. Strangers on a Train
8. Notorious
9. I Confess
10. The 39 Steps
Yes, REBECCA and VERTIGO, for me, round out the top 3.
Mark, while you can be rest assured I agree with everything you say there about Ozu and Bresson, both who are on my short list of favorite directors ever, I will still defend VERTIGO as the cinema’s most rightly celebrated study of obsession, a haunting, eerie and elegiac film with Robert Burks cinematography that mingles the past and present, unforgettable settings and a Bernard Herrmann score to defines what film music is all about or should be in it’s ultimate incarnation. I just do not see any of your issues as part of this equation at all, but as always your comic brilliance brings another perspective, so welcome on a heated thread. But if you see it again I would like to hear of your latest observations my friend.
The exclusion of M was surly surprising Marky Mark. I figured that early Lang sound film would find a place within the top 50. It didn’t, but I’ll live…
A Man Escaped is my pick for greatest Bresson now and forever.
After Vertigo, I would go with Rear Window, Psycho, Shadow Of A Doubt, The Wrong Man, and Strangers On A Train as Hitchcock’s best.
My 10 Hitch films:
Vertigo
Rear Window
Psycho
Notorious
North By Northwest
The Birds
The 39 Steps
Frenzy
Lifeboat
Rebecca
Just got back from an outdoor showing of Mae West’s I’m No Angel at the Narrows Botanical Gardens in my neighborhood. Great fun. I’m completely with you on your top 3 Hitchcock’s Jon (I would also have it in the same exact order). While that threesome represents the most heralded Hitchcock movies in his filmography, I think the general consensus is rather accurate in this particular case. Not a fan of North By Northwest though…
Well, I humbly present my own favorite Hithcocks:
Notorious
Shadow of a Doubt
Strangers on a Train
The Lady Vanishes
The Lodger
The later Hitch I leave to the auteurists, and to Zizek’s “Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Lacan: But Were Afraid To Ask Hitchcock.
Sam it seems to me that both Chaplin and Keaton took a hit this time around. Both The General and City Lights dropped lower as did Modern Times dropping out completely I believe. In fact, there are only 5 “comedies” as I see it on this whole list. Leads into our comedy countdown I suppose. Comedy often gets the shaft.
Jon—I completely agree with on both points. Comedy seems to be under appreciated whenever awards are given out, or lists are compiled.
Interesting that the directors put Ozu on top — interesting implication of what they think direction is all about. Definitely a different idea from anyone who’d put Vertigo or Kane on top. I probably should watch T.Story again before we do the ’53 poll because for all that I liked it on the first viewing, its very exalted status (and Ozu’s overall) remains a bit mysterious to me.
I hope you get a chance to see it one more time Samuel.
It seems likely since I actually own a copy — so determined was I to discovery what the hubbub was about. Criterion extras are always an added incentive. Still, I’m not expecting a conversion experience or a revelation I missed last time. But I’m curious to see what directors see in Ozu when his horizon seems so confined. It’s a philosophical or an emotional thing, I suppose — but I should say no more until I take that second look.
I’ve never quite understood the backlash some have towards VERTIGO but, as a deeply personal film for the director, I guess the idea of splashing deeply personal psychological ideas and a way in a which to work through them is not everyone’s cup of tea. For me, VERTIGO works in many of the same ways that alot of Kubricks films work for me. There seems to be a hook that lures me back again and again. Yes, the film is disturbing for a myriad of reasons and none of them any more disturbing than psychotic obsession. However, if I’m completely honest with myself, I connect with the film and hear it speak loud and clear to me as I have, at one point of time or another, found myself thinking of a particular person or love that just wouldn’t leave my mind. Stewarts performance is like a minor miracle in that he perfectly realises on screen the painful void that rips people that have loved so hard apart when the love dies (both physically and spiritually). VERTIGO is a brave film from a director that rarely opened himself up onto the screen for all to see. It’s not an embarassment, it’s not a sick joke. VERTIGO is honesty and a brave stand up in front of the masses confessing to all that “this is the way I have felt” and I applaud Hitchcock and the film every single time I see it.
On a technical level, I don’t see a flaw in VERTIGO. The production design, cinematography, costuming, editing and, particularly, Bernard Herrmanns haunting and taunting score, are all spot on and assist Hitch and the cast brilliantly.
As for James Stewart… Well, the man was no whore and had the clout to pass on any project that didn’t intrique him or meet his standards for moral and ethical investigation. His turn as the tortured soul grasping onto the last fibers of sanity is one of his very best and most unforgettable performances and I know that it’s left me in tears and with my stomach in knots on many an occasion I’ve had to view this film.
I’m not saying that it’s a better film than CITIZEN KANE, or even better than many of the other films on the list but I won’t moan like a wounded animal over it’s positioning here.
One thing about the list that had me totally interested is that APOCALYPSE NOW scored the No. 14 position and Coppola’s most popular “Masterpiece”s, THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART II, didn’t figure in until the mid 20′s. Frankly, I am elated over the positioning. APOCALYPSE NOW has been far too overlooked as the real masterwork by this amazing director (one of the most impressive track records for a single decade (the 70′s) ) and deserves to be recognized as the truly great film it is. More than any film from that decade, APOCALYPSE NOW proved itself by going beyond mere “movie making” and revealed itself as the “experience” that Coppola and company had always envisioned it to be. It is a haunting and visceral assualt on the senses of the viewer and braves to ask some of the most profound questions ever posed in American cinema. I am a huge fan and admirer of THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART II, but in comparison to APOCALYPSE NOW, they look like mere “movies” when held up against the ingenuity, scope, epic nature and psychology of AOOCALYPSE NOW.
Finally, the critics are confirming what I had always believed…
Dennis, what is there to applaud exactly? The elevation of a personal psychosis to some wide-screen statement about the impossibility of love? Neither Stewart nor Novak have a clue – the strings may be invisible but they are there. A nightmare or reality? A nice puzzles for aesthetes. But nothing more. Beyond the McGuffins and the technical mastery is an ice cold wasteland as savage and ignoble as that encountered by Arthur Gordon Pym in the white-sheeted hell that was the mind of a particular misanthrope and mysoginist who dabbled in pop psychology.
Tony I had an argument with a friend today who does not like Vertigo. He is bored by it. I cannot fathom how one could be bored by it. You seem to be saying that the film is pulling the wool over our eyes, that it is literally a great swindle. Your perspective is not based upon technical flaws, but on a reading into a proposed lack of emotional depth? Is there anything wrong with a film that sees love or relationships or whatever as an ice cold wasteland in your estimation? I mean you might not like it, but that doesn’t mean it’s pretending to be something it’s not. I’m confused.
Look Dennis. I will give it a rest and absent myself for a while. Yes I’m arrogant and off my rocker – pun not intended
– to a significant degree. But if I say I am sorry I mean it. Down here they would call me a rat-bag. I don ‘t shrink from the label nor I am I proud of it. This is just who I am. As Mr Allen said, I would never join a club that would have me as a member. To the johnnie-come-latelies – save your crocodile tears. Asta la vista baby!
Tony everything is cool now, you are not going anywhere my friend.
Hey Jon. Yeah Vertigo is boring. Especially the first hour or so. All those scenes of Jimmy Stewart driving round and round the block.
You are not confused. You are exactly right. Vertigo is technically brilliant yada yada yada…
It is just that the “greatest film of all time” to my mind should have some humanity, some attempt to comprehend what right-living is, and address the human condition of all of the teeming masses that inhabit this forlorn planet. Citizen Kane is more technically brilliant and explores the narrative of individual existence with empathy and wit. Tokyo Story is as I have said on another thread about the “pathos of things” and as close to poetry as the cinema has ever come – L’Atalante is not far behind.
Vertigo is the favorite of an incestuous cohort that know a lot about film but little else. If you want wisdom don’t go to a film critic…
Okay Tony thanks for elaborating. I’m sorry you don’t find Vertigo engaging. I’m actually sorry for you. Maybe I shouldn’t be though. I actually find all the driving around in Vertigo to be incredibly engaging, suspenseful, sensual etc. It’s voyeurism stuff as Stewart follows and “stalks” her. I guess I just find much more there than you do.
“It is just that the “greatest film of all time” to my mind should have some humanity, some attempt to comprehend what right-living is, and address the human condition of all of the teeming masses that inhabit this forlorn planet.”
I don’t think I agree. I’m not quite sure what I want out of a “greatest film of all time” label. To me it’s just if in 2000 years (after we’ve all been blown to bits)….and some Alien or whatever unearths a box that contains a movie (and miraculously a way to play it), then that movie should define movies. It doesn’t have to define anything outside of that medium. Maybe Vertigo doesn’t fit. I’m actually probably in the camp that would rather have Kane stay there.
Oh and Tony, let’s not give Allan credit for that line. That’s Groucho Marx. Allan does not belong anywhere near that quote.
The ‘Allen’ I think Tony references with that line is Woody Allen who quotes that line (and correctly cites G. Marx) near the start of ANNIE HALL. I think Jon is sort of thinking ‘Allen’ was ‘Allan (Fish)’. It’s not.
Whether it’s Allan or Allen, it’s still not right.
Whatever Jon. I put myself down and still get shafted.
A nice story about Groucho. He went to lunch at a restaurant with a bunch of studio suits. They of course all wore suits and placed their jackets over the back of their chairs. Groucho had no jacket and he draped his pants over his chair. Moral of the story, who cares what a bunch of film critics – or bloggers for that matter – think. Be outrageous, say what you really think, and bugger the commentariat. Learn something from the films you all waste most of your lives over. Explore that cavern that you desperately try to fill with empy words, fake sensitivity, and walls of DVDs.
Laters.
Wait Tony! I resemble that remark!!!
Dennis I think Apocalypse Now will move into the top 10 next time. It seems like a film that will climb as the years go on.
I think you might be very right on that, JON.
APOCALYPSE NOW has gained in stature and respect more and more since its release and since the introduction of the directors cut. It’s a sensory experience on top of being one of the most profound, existential tone poems in cinema. I rewatched it recently (on a great Blu-Ray called the “FULL DISCLOSURE” package-highly recommended as I think it’s the best presentation of the film on home video- http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Apocalypse-Now-Blu-ray/14093/ ) and it sucked me in all over again.
I’m consistently amazed by the film with every viewing of it, admire the way Coppola seemlessly, and without any warning, takes Willard and the audience back through time during the journey up the river and am left speechless by the brilliance of Brando in the final 30+ minutes of the film. The set pieces are some of the most dazzling and emmersive in recent cinema history (the helicopter attack on the Vietnamese village and school house, the arrival of the Playboy bunnies in the middle of the jungle wasteland, the attack on the boat and Chiefs death from the “spear”), and it proves to me that the kind of cinema that really turns me on is the kind that envelopes you while suggesting what would normally never be pondered on our own. The film is a stunning treatise on death, the rite of intelligence, and the unstoppable ascention of evolution. Flat out, it’s a masterpiece of gigantic proportions and totally deserving of its new-found placement on the list (and for however long it stays there before usurption)…
We all take for granted how much ass Coppola kicked in the 70′s. Four incredible films back to back to back to back. He was on some sick roll for a prolonged period of time. Picking between The Godfather 2 and Apocalypse Now Redux is an effort in futility. The Conversation and The Godfather are not too shabby either. Though I would urge him to….. free Napoleon.
Great that I am annoying Dennis
That is my intention. You are a nice guy but you can’t expect to blow a lot of empty hot air and get away with it.
Wow Dennis. Sounds like you’ve had a rough day perhaps. This has all been pretty tame and civil (by my estimation). It seems that Tony is just looking for reactionary material. Tony….I’m still waiting for you to actually come up with a less flowery and more reasonable takedown of Vertigo.
This post by Sam broke 100 comments. Been awhile since WITD did that. I guarantee not one past example of this feat was accomplished without someone quitting or a lengthy row ensuing. I just hope Dennis calms down and doesn’t make good on his threat. His passion is essential for the comedy countdown to be a resounding success.
Dennis, sorry that actually having a definition of art not rotting with cliche is such a problem. C’mon buck up. I take this stuff seriously, and you’re a cabbie you should have tougher skin lol.
I’m with Maurizio. We NEED Dennis!! Dennis don’t go!!! You are too important around here. I will miss you if you’re leaving.
Oh, and be careful… as combative as you may find Tony and I, if we left this place would be an endless parade of rub downs and circle jerks. I, for one, feel Wonders has an ability to rise above that usual blogosphere nonsense.
Dennis I understand where you’re coming from, but let’s not give Jaimie and Tony too much credit or power. They know nothing more than the rest of us do (perhaps less). They just use fancier language and funnier wordplay.
Asking to further a stated opinion with substance is akin to brutal totalitarianism? I can’t decide if that’s a great insult to those wanted legit discussion here, people who have actually lived under such a regime, or to Orwell who wrote that great, urgent book. Either way, what the fuck?
Oh, Jon and Maurizio… I’m totally down to try and come up with a top 100.
I am presently talking with Dennis. He is my very very good friend, and I will always stand by him.
But the same applies to the others here who were involved in the row.
Nobody is quitting the site, nobody is leaving to go anywhere.
Dennis is calm now. I am calm now.
The thread is over 100?
God, what it takes these days to make triple figures!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!
All is well in the wonderful world of WitD.
@ Jamie—well the real question is though should we be putting together a plan for the top 100 films…a la our comedy countdown? Or is this just an informal thing here on this post? If it’s here on this post, I’ve got to get cracking. I might be able to get to a list of 100, but they wouldn’t be in order unless I spent some time refining them.
I know that people’s feelings can get hurt. That’s not good. I’m not sure any of us ever intend to hurt someone’s feelings (maybe I’m wrong). I could have jumped ship after the Wizard of Oz debacle last year, but realized that having that debate actually made me understand why I feel the way I do about that film. Same thing happened to a degree with War Horse. Thinking back on it, those were two of my favorite days on this site.
Ah Jon, a perspective forged in the fire. A man after my own heart, and dead accurate.
Haha Jamie. Funny. I’m actually feeling a little incomplete lately…you and I haven’t gone to the mat in like at least 6 months. I tried getting into a debate with a friend of mine today on Vertigo….and he couldn’t hold his end of the argument. Sigh.
You won’t find me wanting to argue with you on VERTIGO, I like that film (I’m actually prepping a longish piece on it to post here in a few months time) and would gladly go side by side there!
Looking forward to that piece on Vertigo, Jamie. I’m sure our time will come again.
Jon, I think the 100 lists will be featured some time down the road. So stay tuned, we’ll think of some way to feature it then Sam will email all concerned. If you have any ideas, send them any time.
Jamie—I actually stayed up late last night and completed a 100 list. I will hold onto that for now.
Jesus Jon! I love it. Already finished, lol. OK give me a few weeks. I too was up late, but was at the office until 3 AM doing a new business pitch… urgh
I also LOVE the fact that the DIRECTORS poll had Coppola listed for APOCALYPSE NOW over his own THE GODFATHER as one of the ten greatest pieces of directors work…
Just firms up my beliefs on the film even more rock solid…
I have to admit – like Samuel Wilson – the exalted status of Tokyo Story was lost on me the one time I watched it. I am not questioning its greatness, it just reminds of how ultimately subjective any of these polls are going to be, regardless of how much every critic says they are trying to list the “greatest” or “best” films of all time. I don’t question its greatness because of those whose opinions (directors, critics, bloggers) I greatly respect consider it to be such an achievement. But even so, I personally would not put it on a ballot if I were asked to compile a list like this.
And I am just reminding myself of the fact that I should probably revisit the film in the near future…
Dave, my love for TOKYO STORY is off the radar, but you have proven here that there are a number of instances where universal praise doe snot resonate with everyone. With me it’s SOME LIKE IT HOT as the perplexing choice. Fair enough.
Without taking too much time to evaluate…..I think these are the 10 films I would select for greatest….not necessarily my favorites. Not necessarily in order either.
Citizen Kane
The Third Man
The Passion of Joan of Arc
Modern Times
Tokyo Story
Vertigo
2001: A Space Odyssey
Apocalypse Now
Persona
The Searchers
Mine changes every week Jon, but at this moment in time I would go with…
2001: A Space Odyssey
Vertigo
M
The Night Of The Hunter
Army Of Shadows
Play Time
The Thin Red Line
Taxi Driver
The Wages Of Fear
Solaris (72)
Is THIN RED LINE your favorite Malick?
Well, until Maurizio gets back here to confirm I do well remember him saying it was his favorite Malick, narrowly ahead of TREE OF LIFE as I recall. But his placing it in the Top Ten of all-time pretty much seals the deal.
Yeah, I was thinking that but wasn’t sure if he was overly separating objective and subjective list(s).
Narrowly ahead of The New World as well Sam which I also admire immensely.
Witt and Welsh in the bombed out hut seals it I guess.
I don’t believe in objective lists anymore (if I ever did). These lists are only worth the subjective opinion they are based on. The greatest film ever does not (and will not) ever exist.
Aye, Maurizio, but what fun we would be missing without lists! Ha!
I feel the same way (about lists), and I assumed those were the ‘grounds’ you were operating on.
I’m actually trying to compose my top 100 as we speak. I’ve been working on it for the past few days. Not sure if I’ll order it, or just offer it as a blank 100.
Maurizio,
I understand what you’re saying about Objective lists being somewhat impossible….nay just plain impossible actually to construct. However I still feel there is a difference between a list of top 10 favorite films, and top 10 greatest films. I see that as different. In fact my “Greatest list” is this one
Citizen Kane
The Third Man
The Passion of Joan of Arc
Modern Times
Tokyo Story
Vertigo
2001: A Space Odyssey
Apocalypse Now
Persona
The Searchers
However, my “favorite list” would be different for the most part and might look something like this:
The Third Man
Duck Soup
The Double Life of Veronique
Persona
Shane
The New World
2001: A Space Odyssey
Black Narcissus
Vertigo
Manhattan
So yes there is some overlap, but I would make my list very different depending on the criteria- favorite versus greatest.
My top 10 (in no particular order):
2001: A Space Odyssey
City Lights
Singin In The Rain
Tokyo Story
Vertigo
Apocalypse Now
Cries And Whispers
Sunrise
The Rules of the Game
Citizen Kane
Dennis, for a long time I would have had CRIES AND WHISPERS as my absolute favorite Bergman, but now I am thinking FANNY AND ALEXANDER by a whisker.
But very fine list here, and CRIES is a great choice!!!
I need to see Fanny And Alexander again soon. What a beautiful film. I remember Bergman saying somewhere that he wished he had that type of large loving family but instead had the actual opposite. Such a sad statement when you watch the movie….
But, MAURIZIO, if he had such a large and loving family like the one his film porttrays would he have still had the need, the desire to make FANNY AND ALEXANDER??????
Probably not. His wanting of one is where the film derives much of it’s power from.
But our gain shouldn’t necessarily override his loss lol.
So Dennis are you calling this your nominees for 10 greatest or are these your 10 favorite films?
If a gun were put to my head I’d have to say 10 BEST from what was presented here in the list and the inclusion of CRIES AND WHISPERS as an added choice. My list of “favorites” is decidedly different…
1. JAWS (1975-D. Spielberg)
2. CITY LIGHTS (1931-D. Chaplin)
3. 2001 (1968-D. Kubrick)
4. VERTIGO (1957-D. Hitchcock)
5. FANTASIA (1940-Disney)
6. KING KONG (1933-D. Shoedsack/Cooper)
7. THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939-D. Fleming)
8. APOCALYPSE NOW (1970-D. Coppola)
9. THE GRADUATE (1967-D. Nichols)
10. SUPERMAN (1978-D. Donner)
Even though it would not be my choice, I can understand why VERTIGO has climbed up to this spot. In fact, going by twitter and blogs over the last few months, it seemed this was going to happen. More than any other film, VERTIGO is a work that demands an emotional response. I think the following words from reverse shot(http://www.reverseshot.com/article/see_it_big_vertigo) sum it up nicely: The always prescient Chris Marker, who paid extended homage to it as early as 1962, in his half-hour science-fiction masterpiece La Jetée, might have figured out first that Vertigo is a film that enters one’s subconscious.
I have read the word subconscious associated with VERTIGO on more than occasion. This is also going by the experience that some friends have mentioned with regards to seeing the film. It is a film that digs deep and plants itself within one’s psyche. In my case, I have never felt a love beyond the technical artistry on display. There were no lingering ghosts or images that haunted me. Yes, the background score bounced in my head a lot but not always with the images. I have also seen my reaction change about the film when I first saw it as a teenager to when I saw it almost a decade later. The only reason I can think of my varied reaction is that I never experienced the film as a 35mm beauty in a cinema. I came to this conclusion after seeing SHUTTER ISLAND, a film whose heightened music made me think this is what it would have felt like to experience a Hitchcock film in a cinema for the first time. So I hope to see a 35mm print of VERTIGO one day.
Great great comment Sachin! Yes the word ‘subconscious’ deserves to be broached over and over when it comes to VERTIGO. And yes, it has appears for months now that Hitchcock would end up with the top spot. I happen to be a huge fan of the film throughout my life, but as this thread has unearthed there are some yourself included who are perplexed. Fair enough.
Two things:
1. This list made it to the front cover of at least two chilean nation-wide newspapers, how many of your respective newspapers did that?
2. Here’s my top 10 so you all can laugh a bit and nod your heads in agreement and usher to each other how much of a fool and idiot and uneducated I am:
DONNIE DARKO
MAGNOLIA
THE SHINING
THE EVIL DEAD
MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL
BRAZIL
KILL BILL
PULP FICTION
DR. STRANGELOVE
VERTIGO
It’s not idiotic or foolish at all. Don’t put yourself down. You like these films and are drawn back to them because something in them speaks to you. That, more than anything, is the true power of art. It speaks to YOU.
Those are all excellent movies. Perfectly legitimate list. Magnolia and Brazil in particular are among my very favorite films of all time.
But your desire to see LINCOLN is greater, no Maurizio??
Ha!
No that’s not the one Maurizio, I am referring to LINCOLN, Spielberg’s film due to open in November. That vampire film as Allan would say is shite, and not Spielberg’s.
Jaimie, nothing to be ashamed of there, as you have some excellent and original choices!
So I just read through this whole thread. I know I haven’t been commented a lot lately, but I do still enjoy reading the site. I just have to say I think these debates can turn into harsh, angry arguments much too often. The passionate back-and-forth is part of what makes the site fun to read, but when the ad hominem attacks become the point it ceases to be fun anymore. Cruelty is no part of legitimate debate. I don’t want to say “can’t we all just get along?”, but can’t we at least treat each other with a modicum of respect and acknowledge that another’s feelings are at stake other than our own?
Mostly what made me angry when reading the thread was the way Jamie in particular refused to stop hounding Dennis even after it was clear how upset he was. These kinds of thing have happened in the past, though. Cruel, mocking remarks are no way to defuse a situation. This isn’t about opinions, it’s about people. You guys here are a community. You thrive on debate. Sometimes you have to take a step back, before you destroy the community and lose your debate partners for good.
Come on, guys, this is kindergarten stuff.
Stephen, I am right at this minute speaking on the phone with Dennis, attempting to diffuse the situation. I am supremely confident that Dennis, Tony and Jamie will be involved with this site for a very long time to come. This site has long had a reputation of anything goes, but I do agree that ad hominem attacks are never the way to go. The situation is under control now. We can get past this.
Stephen not really sure where you see ad hominem attacks entering the conversation, but Dennis is a big boy and can handle himself.
Oh, and if you think I was trying to diffuse the situation they you should read the conversation again (or if you think the situation needed diffusing I’d disagree). I don’t know how a community of fruitful debate is going to happen when stances are stated as merely “it’s my opinion, and that’s enough”. It isn’t, and never will be.
I also think it’s fruitful to understand that this conversation isn’t happening in a vacuum and that this is one in a long line of back-and-forths where footnotes and reference points of past topics matter. I don’t think you know the whole story. But either way I like Dennis a great deal and hope that comes through, if it doesn’t I’ll state that in plain black and white now. But I am diligent and will continue to be so.
Lastly, cruelty certainly has an integral part in any conversation, debate, or discussion. Why not?
A worthy read, if rather close-to-the-knuckle at times. I do not consider myself to have viewed enough of the classics to contribute to the debate nor, indeed, offer a top ten. I will hold off for next time when at my current viewing rate this should have been rectified.
What I will share is a link to Jonathan Rosenbaum’s comments:
http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=31427 . Beyond his insight, he has a rather unusual tactic to picking his ten.
Nice addition there David!!!
Here is Richard Brody in THE NEW YORKER, who among other observations feels it’s ludicrous not to have Chaplin higher and more prolific:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2012/08/sight-sounds-top-50-greatest-films-of-all-time.html
I was surprised to hear about this ranking, but Hitchcock certainly deserves the honour. Citizen Kane did have a pretty good run!
Thanks for you input SS. Excellent points.
Bonjour! Sam Juliano, Allan Fish, WitD writers and readers…
It’s so nice too see director Chris Marker’s “La Jetée” come in at No# 50…[50. La Jetée (Chris Marker,1962)]
Which I have watched only once over there on you-tube after reading recommendation(s) here at WitD…Therefore, I must re-visited this film again in the future… too!
[I also plan to look at his films over there on my Ning...with the news Of his recent death...Heaven knows that I can't look at his private life because he was such a private man.
See Wiki article: director Chris Marker]
As a matter Of fact, his name caught me Off guard somewhat…
…A French-man with a common name…Chris Marker…
[Which I thought was [a little] odd…a director not using his “birth” name too!]
However, as I delve deeper into his life I discovered that his birth name is/was Christian François Bouche-Villeneuve…Ah! ha!…and then I remembered that isn’t Odd at all…Because in most cases, but not all cases, some French people have [or use] several different names…
…I myself have six different names [some that I use online]…and mon père, I think have about three different names… LOL
merci, for sharing the list… too!
deedee
Aye my very good friend! How true is that. With Marker’s recent passing, none of this could have been seen, and it makes the choice even more resonant and suffused with urgency. I am also a bit underexposed to Marker and would like to survey his potput at first opportunity. I am not sure of the name’s origin but will check that out. But you have pretty much done that yourself here. I do know about your multiple names, all of which further enhance your wonderful appeal! Thanks as always my great friend!
“I do know about your multiple names, all of which further enhance your wonderful appeal! Thanks as always my great friend!”
Sam Juliano… Ha! ha! …you’re very welcome!
deedee
The whole thing strikes me as a list coming from an airless parallel universe populated only by critics (Man With the Movie Camera?) but bearing zero resemblance to the fond, messy space with badly-put-up bookshelves, To Do Lists and ironing occupied by everyone else. No musicals, no comedies, no Chaplin, no Wilder, no Truffaut, no Lynch, no Spielberg, no Malick, nothing besides crummy Kubrick from the last half century of film, for Christ’s sake.
The backhanded slap towards The Man With A Movie Camera won’t win you any points in this joint Jeremy lol. That wonderful selection does not come from some airless parallel universe, but one where taste and quality reign true. While these lists mean squat in the overall scheme of things, having Spielberg represented over Kubrick would actually be the crumminess we are all trying to avoid.
Jeremy are you drunk or high? You say there are “no musicals” yet there are a few in the 50, “no Chaplin”, yet there are, “no Wilder”, there is, “No Lynch”, there is, etc. Next time when you bitch about a list, actually read the list!
Oh and nice try attempting to act like a serious film fan while simultaneously putting down a Soviet classic (MAN WITH MOVIE CAMERA) and asking for MORE (Shitty) Spielberg.
Pretending that Spielberg is shit has got to be #1 on the “attempting to act like a serious film fan”, btw.
Oh Jeremy he isn’t pretending. Believe me. He is definitely not pretending.
Presumably you’re talking about the top 10 of the list, right Jeremy? Because the directors you mention are up there in the top 50 list. “8 1/2″ is also there from the last half of the last century, and if anyone’s a pretty fun, messy-space director, it’s Fellini.
As for Spielberg– I suppose I’d rather see “Jaws” up there than “The Searchers”. But there’s any number of westerns or whatevers I’d rather see in that spot than the Ford, so eh.
I think it’s neat that “Metropolis” is on the list, probably thanks in part to its longer cut being found. But it’s not nearly high enough, and I’m not sure it’s worth the loss of “M”.
Eh. At least there’s three Godards. None in the top ten, but a wide survey of them.
Bob–
I agree that M is the better choice for Lang representation, as I’d rank the film as one of the greatest ever made without question.
Rating a diverse array of films in progressive (or regressive) increments of quality is a daunting if not impossible task. It’s the old “apples and oranges” situation. It all boils down to politics – and who’s doing the choosing. If the assessments are done by group consensus, a film may very well lose its status if one of the group is laid up with a cold and doesn’t vote.
Citizen Kane topped polls for so long not merely because it was good filmmaking but, just as importantly, because it was novel and, maybe most of all, because of the politics behind — including what happened to Welles’ career because he made the film. Much of the reason Kane has maintained its status over time is because, at one point in time, people SAID it was great and then others followed suit. My point, then, is that I’m all for arguing for change so that people can think for themselves and come up with their own rationale, as time and tastes change, for quality. Vertigo is as good a choice as many others, and I think that choosing this particular film by Hitchcock doubles as a way of tipping one’s hat to the aggregate accomplishments of — and unique identity of — its director.
Pierre—
Let me say without further adoo that YOU have voiced my own opinon and/or perception of the recent Sight and Sound polling to a tee. I also believe in the domino effect, and the subsequent difficulty in evicting a film once it is awarded a vaunted placement. The change here after 50 years is actually welcome as it brings a fresh perspective to a voting that many had seen as stagnant due to a long period of staying the course. Of course even if we are to take this voting seriously, we can’t really resign ourselves to any concrete conclusions as to what is really the greatest film of all time. Is it the new kid on the block VERTIGO? Or is it the film that has held the position far longer, CITIZEN KANE? I agree that when we are dealing with films this great, a numerical categorization is rather arbitrary and subject to the ‘what day of the week I am asked’ philosophy. So true of what you say about Hitchcock there at the end too.
I am surprised nobody on the thread has yet mentioned that both CITIZEN KANE and VERTIGO are united by their composer – Bernard Herrmann. Another persuasive statistic to back up those who may believe him to be the best composer of all-time. But for now, I won’t go there! Ha!
Thanks again my friend for the typically high-quality comment!
Ahhhhhh — I’d forgotten about Bernard!
Sam, great point about Bernard. That is quite the unique feat. I can’t imagine VERTIGO without its pulsating & haunting score. Herrmann has quite the list of titles to his name and the last film he worked on was TAXI DRIVER. Wow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Herrmann
Sam, I don’t know if this has been mentioned above but another common thread between CITIZEN KANE & VERTIGO is that both films were not appreciated upon their release but love for them grew over the years due to film critics who advocated love for the works.
That’s an excellent point Sachin! Absolutely!
Lots to say but I’m tiring of typing everything, slowly and rife with spelling errors, from an iPhone (God, Dennis, now I know what You were dealing with all those years haha) so I’ll keep it brief. A few notes on the list and the discussion:
-Vertigo is one of those love it/leave it movies. Unlike Citizen Kane, which can be appreciated even if you don’t particularly enjoy it, it’s hard to get Vertigo if you don’t viscerally enjoy it. I will say though that it’s resonance and power extend far beyond cinephilia and formal prowess; it’s very much a film about people and their emotions and the way these emotions find expression in society. It’s approach is worlds apart from Tokyo Story, but it’s concerns less so. I’m fine with it being #1 though I suppose the symbolic importance of that number might call for something more wide-reaching and ambitious, like Kane. Or maybe not, maybe it requires something more deeply immersed in the romantic passions moviegoing can evoke (although I too think the ‘Kane is cold’ argument vastly overstated. At any rate I’m kind of glad it wasn’t Rules of the Game that dethroned Kane, as I thought it might be. A fine film but one I find somewhat overrated (we’ve all got these blind spots, don’t we?
)
- Godard v. Bergman. I’ve 2 dogs in this fight. Both would easily make a top 10 for me. Ironically they both kind of took digs at one another. Godard with his ‘Silence’ pastiche in Masculin Feminin, but that was affectionate compared to the swipes Ingmar made at Jean-Luc in an interview. And it’s easy to see why. Though I happen to mesh well with both sensibilities, Bergman and Godard represent very different ways of making – and appreciating – movies. Bergman was the more solid craftsman, at least in the traditional/conventional sense, while Godard was generally more inventive and individual. The uniqueness of Bergman’s films lie more in the screenplay; visually he was actually quite a chameleon despite all the iconic touchstones we can recall from his films – hence the rather ungenerous Times piece Rosenbaum wrote back in 07. In his professionalism and control (for lack of a better term) Godard was frankly less accomplished than Bergman but he turned what could be seen as sloppiness to his advantage. To those who value polish above all else, there can be no real excuse but to these eyes by taking wild risks and allowing spontaneity and experiment into the very filmmaking process, Godard achieved sublime wonders. Bergman, on the other hand, could be criticized for being too earnest, too reliant on words to express emotion, too stylized in technique to allow the surprises of raw reality – to the point of courting charges of pretension. But these too are risks and ultimately, for me, as rewarding in their very different way as Godard’s. Both offer me visually striking, intellectually provocative, and – most importantly – viscerally effective works of art.
- And finally, my own top 10, bests not favorite. Like Jon, I see a distinction. Without getting into the whole objectivity vs. subjectivity debate, I’ll say that one represents the movies I admire, somewhat more cerebrally than viscerally, while the other demonstrates what I most enjoy on a gut level. Fortunately there’s a lot of overlap between the 2 although only 3 of these are on my top 10 ‘favorites’:
Citizen Kane
L’Eclisse
The Godfather Part II
The House is Black
The Man with the Movie Camera
The Mirror
Out 1
Red Hot Riding Hood
2001: A Space Odyssey
Vertigo
Ironically, no Bergman OR Godard haha. No Dreyer either, but that’s actually an accidental oversight. I composed the list, realized I’d left off Passion of Joan of Arc (the most likely contender) and couldn’t decide what to delete! So there it is. Objectivity ruined by human error once again. Sigh. HAL would be displeased…
Actually, let’s make HAL more displeased. Upon reflection, I think the second section of 2001 is relatively weak compared to the other parts (that memorable opening and the closing in the white room, the – it’s still a masterpiece and top 100, 50, maybe even 20 material for sure, but I’ll nervously squeak it out of the top 10 in favor of Dreyer. Although I’m kind of bummed there now there are no aliens in my top 10 (yeah I know, the Star Child isn’t an alien, but Keir Dullea reincarnated or reborn or whatever…)
Revised:
Citizen Kane
L’Eclisse
The Godfather Part II
The House is Black
The Man with the Movie Camera
The Mirror
Out 1
The Passion of Joan of Arc
Red Hot Riding Hood
Vertigo
*(that memorable opening and the closing in the white room, and especially the long sequence in which HAL takes over the ship)
/fixed
Joel, I would absolutely agree that Dreyer’s JOAN OF ARC would be in the Top Ten, and I love your choice of THE HOUSE IS BLACK, an inspired choices that may well be in my own Top 10 as well. My Kubrick would be BARRY LYNDON, though 2001 is a very great choice as well, and then there is Bresson, Ozu and Mizoguchi to be reckoned with. Not easy, but you’ve done very well here if I might say so!
I’ve realized Barry Lyndon is personally my favorite Kubrick but on a lot like this I’d place 2001 higher since its so iconic and paradigm-shifting. I don’t mean that so much in terms of its actual influence as in what’s contained onscreen (obviously, The House is Black is not very widely-seen but it’s content remains revolutionary). We’re I balloting in a poll like this I would consider first and foremost films that were/are breakthroughs or summits of a certain field, style, approach, technique, etc.
Ugh, the iPhoneassacred that comment! Hopefully you get the drift
*massacred
This is getting ridiculous…
I see no problem at all with ‘Vertigo’ topping the list. There will be an issue with every film for some. I would wager at least a few will argue against the ‘Mona Lisa’ and ‘The Last Supper’ as inferior works of art. Others will contend that Beethoven’s ’9th’ is problematic. And still others will lament the difficulty in remembering the Russian names in ‘The Brothers Karamazov’. Miles Davis’s ‘Kind of Blue.’ Bah humbug! It’s rarely a statement on the work, but instead on the person discussing it.
A little Armond White anyone? lol.
I love “Vertigo” but “Rear Window” is my favorite Hitch.